State v. Aranda

Under OEC 609(1), “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted…”

Defendant appeals a conviction of first-degree rape. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes without conducting an OEC 403 balancing assessment. Defendant argued that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of his prior convictions outweighed any probative value in regards to his credibility, and that admitting those convictions violated his due process rights. In response, the State argued that OEC 609 has a “per se” requirement to admit prior felony convictions and crimes of dishonesty so it does not require a balancing assessment and the use of convictions to impeach a testifying defendant does not violate due process because it has been historically permissible. Under OEC 609(1), “[f]or the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted…” The Court found that there was no clear national historical context for using a balancing assessment. The Court reasoned that because the underlying principles of the Due Process Clause were to prevent unfair prejudice against a defendant and because prior convictions can lead to unfair prejudice, a court must do a balancing assessment to determine whether the probative value of the prior convictions outweighs the chance of unfair prejudice. Vacated and remanded.